In high school,
I took philosophy as an elective. I only studied it for a semester (that was
about as much idealist, navel-gazing as my rationalist, materialist brain could
take), but it helped me work out my political and philosophical views.It thus
contributed to me becoming the snarky, revolutionary leftist, radical feminism
supporter that I am today, though I do not think anyone in the class (including
myself) intended for things to turn out that way.- One day, the
topic for the lesson was self reflection (or if you want to use the somewhat
pretentious terminology employed by the teacher, “know thyself”). A student,
when asked to describe himself, stated that he was a fifteen year old,
Caucasian male. From the perspective of those who promote identity politics,
this was a fine answer. In fact, all he would have to do to be labelled a
brilliant, progressive thinker by identity obsessed liberals is toss in a few
references to privilege, along with more information than any us need to know
about his sexual preferences or activities.The teacher
on the other hand was not impressed. If you understand why, you probably know
what some of the problems with identity politics are. If not, well that is what
this post is for, though be warned that this blog is not the place for
philosophical navel-gazing.- What is Identity Politics?For a long
time I had an instinctive dislike of something called “identity politics”. I
heard the term being used derogatorily by radical leftists (including some
radical feminists), though to my confusion some liberals proudly identified
with it. It was not easy to pin down exactly what the term meant, but here is
the answer I came up with.

Identity
politics consists of turning either superficial traits (such as sexual
preferences and unhealthy lifestyle choices) or hierarchical social categories
(especially race, sex and class) into “identities”, which are then meant to
form a basis for political movements. Some say that identity politics began
with Karl Marx, who claimed that capitalism divided people into economic
classes and that the exploited working class needed to overthrow the ruling
class. However, not all political discussions of race, sex and class promote
identity politics. What
distinguishes Marx from identity politics proponents is that he envisioned the
abolition of class divisions. To endorse identity politics is to claim that the
class, sex and race of a person (along with similar categories) combine to create
their “identity”. Thus those who adhere to identity politics either cannot
imagine the end of such categories or view efforts to eliminate them as
oppressive.For example,
revolutionary socialism (especially Marxism) is condemned, by liberals and
conservative alike, for supposedly seeking to destroy human individuality. Similar
arguments are made against radical feminists (who aim to abolish masculinity
and femininity, just as radical leftists seek to abolish economic class),
though with more modern buzzwords, like “diversity”. In both cases, oppressive
social orders are reinforced. If someone believes that their identity is
dependent on being assigned positions within hierarchies (which is what the
various class and gender categories really are) they will support such systems
and harshly denounce those opposed to them, while claiming to be the true
defenders of equality.However, not
all identity politics proponents view themselves as progressive or feminist. White
supremacy and male supremacy can also be expressions of identity politics. Such
thinking is often based on stereotypes regarding the supposed intelligence,
productivity, ambition and “bravery” (or rather brutal aggression towards
designated enemies) of white males. It stands to reason that the more a person
thinks of himself as a “white male” rather than a human being, the more likely
he is to be offended by criticisms of white people or males as a whole (or the
roles pushed onto them), causing him to accept reactionary viewpoints.However, identity
politics is not a genuinely progressive force, regardless of which group
adheres to it. Whenever we encourage someone to feel attached to either a
dominant or a subordinate role within an oppressive order, we reinforce that
order. Thus those who favour an egalitarian society should oppose identity
politics in all its forms.Identity Politics and LiberalismAs I stated
above, reactionaries do sometimes promote identity politics (while
hypocritically accusing their opponents of doing so). However it makes sense
that identity politics is usually associated with liberalism (the belief that
all actions are morally permissible if there is consent), since the former is often
used to justify controversial behaviours. Those who practice a harmful
behaviour can protect it from criticism by implying that the behaviour is “who
they are”. Any opposition to it is then perceived as a personal attack.

Liberals
typically use identity politics to defend sexual practices (both benign ones,
like gay relationships, and harmful ones, like sadomasochism), but recently I
have seen it used in reference to other activities. The label “gamers” (a
category which seems to only include obsessive video game players who favour
violent games and enjoy, or at least tolerate, the misogyny in them) is a convenient
excuse to silence critics of the industry who are accused of not being “real
gamers”. Then there is the argument that “gamers” are being persecuted, because
some people disapprove of certain games. I do not know of anyone who argues
that video games are inherently evil and should be abolished, but the “gamer”
label sure is an effective means of suppressing political disagreements.The term “smokers”
is used in a similar way to defend tobacco consumption. Those who create policies
aimed at discouraging smoking may be denounced for discriminating against
“smokers”. By replacing the verb, “smoking”, with the noun “smoker”, one can
obscure the fact that a bad habit is being targeted rather than a set of
people. Nobody is inherently a “smoker” (or a “gamer” for that matter, let
alone a player of violent games), nor is anyone destined to remain one (however
difficult quitting may be). Those who smoke are not in the same position as
those born with female genitalia or dark skin. The former have the option of
giving up their dangerous habit (which is, after all, the objective of the
policies) and escaping any perceived discrimination. The latter do not.However, as
harmful as smoking is, it is not directly contrary to the aim of creating an
egalitarian world. The behaviours I am most concerned about are those which
strengthen hierarchies, in addition to harming physical health. Liberal
feminists promote such behaviours through the belief that to be a woman is to adhere
to some form of femininity (this can mean anything from using lipstick to
getting cosmetic surgery to behaving in an overly sweet and gentle way, which
makes one vulnerable to abuse). Combine this with identity politics
(specifically, the claim that womanhood is an aspect of identity) and you
arrive at the conclusion that feminine behaviours make women “who they are” and
thus are only opposed by those with a personal hatred for women. Similar
reasoning is employed by anti-feminists to defend behaviours that society
associates with men, including sexual aggression, along with the consumption of
pornography and other violent media (including violent video games). Thus
identity politics is used to excuse harmful behaviours on both sides of the gender
hierarchy.An Alternative to Identity PoliticsIt is possible
to recognise that one has particular attributes or behaviours while rejecting
the view that such traits constitute your “identity”. This can be an important
step towards self improvement, since it is psychologically easier to give up a
harmful habit than it is to give up a behaviour which is supposedly part of “who
you are”. However, people would generally prefer to have some sense of identity.
Those who dismiss identity politics should therefore propose an alternative way
to respond to the “describe yourself” prompt discussed earlier.

Humans have
the ability to think rationally, experience emotions, express opinions, tell
stories, develop ambitions and imagine other worlds. These characteristics are
specific to humans (and perhaps some mammals), yet identity politics barely
acknowledges them. Sex obsessed liberals should note that brief bursts of
sexual arousal (and other forms of temporary, mostly physical pleasure) do not
fall within my definition of “emotions”, only deeper, lasting feelings, like sadness,
fear, anger, happiness and genuine love do (though it is possible to express deep,
positive feelings through sex). Asking someone what would make them angry or
bring them permanent happiness is a far more effective means of getting to know
them then asking for a list of things which cause pleasurable physical responses
from their genitals.The traits liberals
obsess over, such as appearances, habits, social roles and sexual preferences are
superficial. They may enable survival and reproduction (though some habits,
like smoking, impair survival) but being human means doing more than that. If
the traits you list when describing yourself are not specific to intelligent
life or are external, physical traits which society uses to assign roles to
you (such as your race and sex), you might want to rethink your notion of identity.However,
even a sense of identity based on deeper traits should not command blind
respect. My political and philosophical views are an important part of my
identity and they do not usually receive such respect, nor do I think they
should. Disagreements and debates, including fierce ones, can be an important source
of growth. The thoughts, feelings, ambitions and stories of humans should
all be open to critique. These characteristics differ from the superficial ones
liberals focus on in that they can be used to determine the true nature of a person,
good or bad.That said,
traits like race, sex and economic class should not be completely ignored, for
doing so leads to the reactionary delusion that such categories no longer have
political importance. Instead we should be conscious of the roles that society
pushes onto us (whether they involve dominance or submission) without accepting
the claim that these roles are our “identities”.For example,
biological males who wish to be decent human beings (while rejecting identity
politics) must recognise that social forces (like the pornography, mainstream
media and gendered toys) are encouraging them into behaving in aggressive,
dominating ways. They must then consciously fight that indoctrination, every
step of the way, instead of incorporating such behaviours into their sense of
self. It is not acceptable to simply assert that society does not influence
you. You must acknowledge that a problem exists in order to fight it. Otherwise
you leave your mind vulnerable to influence. It is also important to learn to
think critically, for acknowledging the existence of indoctrination without knowing
how to combat it, leads right back to relativism and identity politics.In past
decades, revolutionary leftists and radical feminism often spoke of “raising consciousness”
with regard to class and gender. Nowadays liberals think they can substitute
the term “identity” in place of “consciousness”. In reality, the two are not interchangeable,
for “consciousness” (when used in both political and apolitical contexts) refers
to an awareness of the real world and the place one occupies within it, while “identity”
refers to the beliefs people have about themselves (which can still be wrong).
While we need identities (preferably ones that are not based on hierarchical
roles), the term “consciousness” needs to be brought back into political
discourse. This would enable radicals to reintroduce materialist thinking in
opposition to the idealism of identity politics.-

ConclusionOpponents of social hierarchies,
like capitalism and male dominance, must recognise that we are more than the
roles society shoves down our throats. We must encourage consciousness with
regard to class, race and gender, in place of the belief that such categories are our “identities”. Radicals seek an awareness of reality so that we can
change it. We should avoid getting so caught up in hierarchical roles that we lose
the ability to see beyond them. The term “identity” should be reserved for characteristics
that truly capture our unique selves. While nobody can hope to fully fulfil the
“describe yourself” instruction in few words, here is how I would respond to it.I am an intelligent,
creative, stubborn, critical, often angry human being, who values equality,
liberty, reason and collective resistance to domination. I envision a socialist
revolution, which enables the working masses to do away with class, gender,
religion, consumerism and other institutions or practices which reinforce
hierarchies. Notice how my response did not include references to the
social categories I belong to?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I hope that those of you in the Northern Hemisphere enjoyed your summers and that this post has given readers from all over the world something to think about (and comment on).

Follow

About Me

I am a radical leftist who does not belong to any political party or organisation (hence the name "Independent Radical.) The labels I use to describe my political ideology are "revolutionary socialist" and "communist". My political and philosophical views have also been influenced by radical feminism, the atheist movement, the sceptic movement, utilitarianism and virtue ethics. I do not claim to represent any of these movements, but I hope that those who identify with them will get something out of my blog.
I have no interest in appealing to liberal feminists, liberals in general, queer theorists, libertarians, post-modernists or anyone else who thinks that "anything goes" with regard to questions of objective reality or ethical behaviour. I am an unashamed truth-seeker and moralist. If that offends you, do not read my posts.